37 health systems with strong finances

Here are 37 health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from credit rating agencies Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service released in 2024.

AdventHealth has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating is based on the Altamonte Springs, Fla.-based system’s competitive market position — especially in its core Florida markets — and its financial profile, Fitch said. 

Advocate Health members Advocate Aurora Health and Atrium Health have “Aa3” ratings and positive outlooks with Moody’s. The ratings are supported by the Charlotte, N.C-based system’s significant scale, strong market share across several major metro areas and good financial performance and liquidity, Moody’s said. 

Avera Health has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Sioux Falls, S.D.-based system’s strong operating risk and financial profile assessments, and significant size and scale, Fitch said.  

Carilion Clinic has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Roanoke, Va.-based system’s scale, regional significance as a tertiary referral system with broad geographic capture, and a highly integrated physician base with a well-defined culture, Moody’s said. 

Cedars-Sinai Health System has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Los Angeles-based system’s consistent historical profitability and its strong liquidity metrics, historically supported by significant philanthropy, Fitch said. 

Children’s Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Dallas-based system’s continued strong performance from a focus on high margin and tertiary services, as well as a distinctly leading market share, Moody’s said.    

Children’s Hospital Medical Center of Akron (Ohio) has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the system’s large primary care physician network, long-term collaborations with regional hospitals and leading market position as its market’s only dedicated pediatric provider, Moody’s said. 

Children’s Hospital of Orange County has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Orange, Calif.-based system’s position as the leading provider for pediatric acute care services in Orange County, a position solidified through its adult hospital and regional partnerships, ambulatory presence and pediatric trauma status, Fitch said. 

Children’s Minnesota has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Minneapolis-based system’s strong balance sheet, robust liquidity position and dominant pediatric market position, Fitch said. 

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating is supported by its national and international reputation in clinical services and research, Moody’s said. 

Cleveland Clinic has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the system’s strength as an international brand in highly complex clinical care and research and centralized governance model, the ratings agency said.  

Cook Children’s Medical Center has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The ratings agency said the Fort Worth Texas-based system will benefit from revenue diversification through its sizable health plan, large physician group, and an expanding North Texas footprint.   

El Camino Health has an “AA” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Mountain View, Calif.-based system’s strong operating profile assessment with a history of generating double-digit operating EBITDA margins anchored by a service area that features strong demographics as well as a healthy payer mix, Fitch said. 

Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Newport Beach, Calif.-based system’s rating is supported by its strong operating risk assessment, leading market position in its immediate service area and strong financial profile,” Fitch said. 

Inspira Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Fitch’s expectation that the Mullica Hill, N.J.-based system will return to strong operating cash flows following the operating challenges of 2022 and 2023, as well as the successful integration of Inspira Medical Center of Mannington (formerly Salem Medical Center). 

JPS Health Network has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Fort Worth, Texas-based system’s sound historical and forecast operating margins, the ratings agency said. 

Mass General Brigham has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Somerville, Mass.-based system’s strong reputation for clinical services and research at its namesake academic medical center flagships that drive excellent patient demand and help it maintain a strong market position, Moody’s said. 

McLaren Health Care has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Grand Blanc, Mich.-based system’s leading market position over a broad service area covering much of Michigan, the ratings agency said. 

Med Center Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Bowling Green, Ky.-based system’s strong operating risk assessment and leading market position in a primary service area with favorable population growth, Fitch said.  

Memorial Hermann Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Houston-based system’s leading and expanding market position and strong demand in a growing region, Moody’s said. 

Nationwide Children’s Hospital has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Columbus, Ohio-based system’s strong market position in pediatric services, growing statewide and national reputation and continued expansion strategies. 

Nicklaus Children’s Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating is supported by the Miami-based system’s position as the “premier pediatric hospital in South Florida with a leading and growing market share,” Fitch said. 

Novant Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The ratings agency said the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based system’s recent acquisition of three South Carolina hospitals from Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare will be accretive to its operating performance as the hospitals are highly profited and located in areas with growing populations and good income levels. 

Oregon Health & Science University has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Portland-based system’s top-class academic, research and clinical capabilities, Moody’s said.  

Orlando (Fla.) Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the health system’s strong and consistent operating performance and a growing presence in a demographically favorable market, Fitch said.  

Presbyterian Healthcare Services has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Albuquerque, N.M.-based system’s rating is driven by a strong financial profile combined with a leading market position with broad coverage in both acute care services and health plan operations, Fitch said. 

Rush University System for Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Chicago-based system’s strong financial profile and an expectation that operating margins will rebound despite ongoing macro labor pressures, the rating agency said. 

Saint Francis Healthcare System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Cape Girardeau, Mo.-based system’s strong financial profile, characterized by robust liquidity metrics, Fitch said. 

Saint Luke’s Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The Kansas City, Mo.-based system’s rating was upgraded from “A1” after its merger with St. Louis-based BJC HealthCare was completed in January. 

Salem (Ore.) Health has an”AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s dominant marketing positive in a stable service area with good population growth and demand for acute care services, Fitch said. 

Seattle Children’s Hospital has an “AA” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s strong market position as the only children’s hospital in Seattle and provider of pediatric care to an area that covers four states, Fitch said.  

SSM Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The St. Louis-based system’s rating is supported by a strong financial profile, multistate presence and scale with good revenue diversity, Fitch said. 

St. Elizabeth Medical Center has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Edgewood, Ky.-based system’s strong liquidity, leading market position and strong financial management, Fitch said. 

Stanford Health Care has an “Aa3” rating and positive outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Palo Alto, Calif.-based system’s clinical prominence, patient demand and its location in an affluent and well insured market, Moody’s said.     

UChicago Medicine has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s strong financial profile in the context of its broad and growing reach for high-acuity services, Fitch said.  

University of Colorado Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Aurora-based system’s rating reflects a strong financial profile benefiting from a track record of robust operating margins and the system’s growing share of a growth market anchored by its position as the only academic medical center in the state, Fitch said. 

Willis-Knighton Medical Center has an “AA-” rating and positive outlook with Fitch. The outlook reflects the Shreveport, La.-based system’s improving operating performance relative to the past two fiscal years combined with Fitch’s expectation for continued improvement in 2024 and beyond. 

Steward Files for Bankruptcy and It Feels All Too Familiar

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/steward-files-bankruptcy-and-it-feels-all-too-familiar

Steward Health Care’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on May 6, 2024, brought back bad memories of another large health system bankruptcy.

On July 21, 1998, Pittsburgh-based Allegheny Health and Education Research Foundation (AHERF) filed Chapter 11. AHERF grew very rapidly, acquiring hospitals, physicians, and medical schools in its vigorous pursuit of scale across Pennsylvania. Utilizing debt capacity and spending cash, AHERF quickly ran out of both, defaulted on its obligations, and then filed for bankruptcy. It was one of the largest bankruptcy filings in municipal finance and the largest in the rated not-for-profit hospital universe.

Steward Health Care is a for-profit, physician-owned hospital company, but its long-standing roots were in faith-based not-for-profit healthcare. Prior to the acquisition by Cerberus Capital Management in 2010, Caritas Christi Health Care System was comprised of six hospitals in eastern Massachusetts. Caritas was a well-regarded health system, providing a community alternative to the academic medical centers in downtown Boston. Over the next 14 years, Steward grew rapidly to 31 hospitals in eight states, most recently bolstered through an expansive sale-leaseback structure with a REIT. Per the bankruptcy filings, the company reported $9 billion in secured debt and leases on $6 billion of revenue.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings in corporate America are a means to efficiently sell assets or a path to re-emergence as a new streamlined company. A quick glance at Steward’s organizational structure shows a dizzying checkerboard of companies and LLCs that will require a massive untangling. Further, its capital structure includes both secured debt for operations and a separate and distinct lease structure for its facilities, and in bankruptcy, that signals significant complexity. Bankruptcy filings in not-for-profit healthcare are less common, although it is surprising that the industry did not see an increase after the pandemic. Not-for-profit hospitals that are in distress seem to hang on long enough to find a buyer, gain increased state funding, attain accommodations on obligations, or find some other escape route to avoid a payment default or filing.

Details regarding Steward’s undoing will unfold in the coming weeks as it moves through an auction process. But there are some early takeaways the not-for-profit industry can learn from this:

  1. Remain essential in your local market. Hospitals must prove their value to their constituents, including managed care payers, especially in competitive urban markets, as Steward may have learned in eastern Massachusetts and Miami. Prior strategies of making a margin as an out-of-network provider are no longer viable as patients must shoulder more of the financial burden. Simply put, your organization should be asking one question: does a managed care plan need our existing network to sell a product in our market? If the answer is no, you need to develop strategies that make your hospital essential.
  2. Embrace financial planning for long-term viability. Without it, a hospital or health system will be unable to afford the capital spending it needs to maintain attractive, patient-friendly, state-of-the art facilities or absorb long-term debt to fund the capital. Annual financial planning is more than just a trendline going forward. The scenarios and inputs must be well-founded, well-grounded in detail, and based on conservative assumptions. Increasing attention has to be paid to disrupters, innovators, specialized/segmented offerings, and expansion plans of existing and new competitors. Investors expect this from not-for-profit borrowers. Higher-performing hospitals and health systems of all sizes do this well.
  3. Build capital capacity through improved cash flow. It is undoubtedly clear that Steward, like AHERF, was unable to afford the capital and debt they thought they could, either through flawed financial planning of its future state or, more concerning, the complete absence of it. Or they believed that rapid growth would solve all problems, not detailed financial planning, the use of benchmarks, or a sharp focus on operations. Increasing that capacity through sustained financial performance will allow an organization to de-leverage and build capital capacity.

When the case studies are written about Steward, a fact pattern will be revealed that includes the inability or unwillingness to attain synergies as a system, underspending on facility capital needs given a severe liquidity crunch, labor challenges, and a rapid payer mix shift.

Underlying all of this will undoubtedly be a failure of governance and leadership as we saw with AHERF. It will also likely indicate that one of the most precious assets healthcare providers may have is the management bandwidth to ensure strategic plans are appropriately made, tested, monitored, and executed.

While Steward and AHERF may be held up as extreme cases, not-for-profit hospital governance must continue to focus on checks-and-balances of management resources. Likewise, management must utilize benchmarks, data, and strong financial planning, given the challenges the industry faces.

67 financial benchmarks for health system executives

35 financial benchmarks for healthcare executives | HENRY KOTULA

Health system leaders use benchmarking as a way to determine how their organizations stack up against both local and regional peers.

Below are 67 financial benchmarks, including key ratios for health systems, as well as revenue and margin metrics, broken down by rating category.

Key balance sheet metrics, ratios:

Source: Fitch Ratings’ “2021 Median Ratios: Not-for-Profit Hospitals and Healthcare Systems” report. It was released Aug. 3. 

1. Cash on hand: 255 days

2. Accounts receivable: 44.6 days

3. Cushion ratio: 29x

4. Current liabilities: 95 days

5. Cash to debt: 169.9 percent

6. Cash to adjusted debt: 161.1 percent

7. Operating margin: 1.3 percent

8. Operating EBITDA margin: 6.7 percent

9. Excess margin: 3.1 percent

10. EBITDA margin: 8.5 percent

11. Net adjusted debt to adjusted EBITDA: -2.6 percent

12. Personnel costs as percent of total operating revenue: 55 percent

13. EBITDA debt service coverage: 3.9x

14. Operating EBITDA debt service coverage: 3.2x

15. Maximum annual debt service as percent of revenues: 2.2 percent

16. Debt to EBITDA ratio: 4.4x

17. Debt to capitalization: 35.2 percent

18. Average age of plant: 11.4 years

19. Capital expenditures as percent of depreciation expense: 110.1 percent

Margins, revenue financial benchmarks broken down by rating category: 

Source: S&P Global Ratings “U.S. Not-For-Profit Health Care System Median Financial Ratios — 2019 vs. 2021″ report.” The report was released Aug. 30.

“AA+” rating

20. Net patient service revenue: $4.16 billion

21. Total operating revenue: $4.43 billion

22. Operating margin: 4.5 percent

23. Operating EBIDA margin: 11.3 percent

24. Excess margin: 5.5 percent

25. EBIDA margin: 12.2 percent

“AA” rating

26. Net patient service revenue: $3.98 billion

27. Total operating revenue: $4.95 billion

28. Operating margin: 3.2 percent

29. Operating EBIDA margin: 8.3 percent

30. Excess margin: 5.8 percent

31. EBIDA margin: 10.7 percent

“AA-” rating

32. Net patient service revenue: $3.08 billion

33. Total operating revenue: $3.41 billion

34. Operating margin: 1.9 percent

35. Operating EBIDA margin: 7.1 percent

36. Excess margin: 4.1 percent

37. EBIDA margin: 9.2 percent

“A+” rating

38. Net patient service revenue: $2.26 billion

39. Total operating revenue: $2.55 billion

40. Operating margin: 3 percent

41. Operating EBIDA margin: 7.1 percent

42. Excess margin: 5.5 percent

43. EBIDA margin: 10.9 percent

“A” rating

44. Net patient service revenue: $2.69 billion

45. Total operating revenue: $3.07 billion

46. Operating margin: 0.7 percent

47. Operating EBIDA margin: 6.6 percent

48. Excess margin: 5.5 percent

49. EBIDA margin: 2.3 percent

“A-” rating

50. Net patient service revenue: $2.08 billion

51. Total operating revenue: $2.69 billion

52. Operating margin: 0.6 percent

53. Operating EBIDA margin: 6.7 percent

54. Excess margin: 2.4 percent

55. EBIDA margin: 8 percent

“BBB+” rating

56. Net patient service revenue: $1.85 billion

57. Total operating revenue: $2.27 billion

58. Operating margin: -0.2 percent

59. Operating EBIDA margin: 5 percent

60. Excess margin: 0.5 percent

61. EBIDA margin: 6 percent

“BBB” rating

62. Net patient service revenue: $2.96 billion

63. Total operating revenue: $4.11 billion

64. Operating margin: -3.2 percent

65. Operating EBIDA margin: 1.6 percent

66. Excess margin: -2 percent

67. EBIDA margin: 2.8 percent